ERIC ZUESSE | 28.04.2016 | WORLD
Seymour Hersh Says Hillary Approved Sending Libya’s Sarin to Syrian Rebels
The great investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, in two previous articles in the London Review of Books («Whose Sarin?» and «The Red Line and the Rat Line»)
has reported that the Obama Administration falsely blamed the
government of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad for the sarin gas attack that
Obama was trying to use as an excuse to invade Syria; and Hersh pointed
to a report from British intelligence saying that the sarin that was
used didn’t come from Assad’s stockpiles. Hersh also said that a secret
agreement in 2012 was reached between the Obama Administration and the
leaders of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, to set up a sarin gas attack
and blame it on Assad so that the US could invade and overthrow Assad. «By
the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi
Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for
getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria». Hersh
didn’t say whether these «arms» included the precursor chemicals for
making sarin which were stockpiled in Libya, but there have been multiple independent reports that
Libya’s Gaddafi possessed such stockpiles, and also that the US
Consulate in Benghazi Libya was operating a «rat line» for Gaddafi’s
captured weapons into Syria through Turkey. So, Hersh isn’t the only
reporter who has been covering this. Indeed, the investigative
journalist Christoph Lehmann headlined on
7 October 2013, «Top US and Saudi Officials responsible for Chemical
Weapons in Syria» and reported, on the basis of very different sources
than Hersh used, that «Evidence
leads directly to the White House, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff Martin Dempsey, CIA Director John Brennan, Saudi Intelligence
Chief Prince Bandar, and Saudi Arabia´s Interior Ministry». And,
as if that weren’t enough, even the definitive analysis of the evidence
that was performed by two leading US analysts, the Lloyd-Postal report, concluded that, «The
US Government’s Interpretation of the Technical Intelligence It
Gathered Prior to and After the August 21 Attack CANNOT POSSIBLY BE
CORRECT». Obama has clearly been lying.
However, now, for the first time, Hersh has implicated Hillary Clinton directly in this «rat line». In an interview with Alternet.org, Hersh
was asked about the then-US-Secretary-of-State’s role in the Benghazi
Libya US consulate’s operation to collect weapons from Libyan stockpiles
and send them through Turkey into Syria for a set-up sarin-gas attack,
to be blamed on Assad in order to ‘justify’ the US invading Syria, as
the US had invaded Libya to eliminate Gaddafi. Hersh said: «That
ambassador who was killed, he was known as a guy, from what I
understand, as somebody, who would not get in the way of the CIA. As I
wrote, on the day of the mission he was meeting with the CIA base chief
and the shipping company. He was certainly involved, aware and witting
of everything that was going on. And there’s no way somebody in that
sensitive of a position is not talking to the boss, by some channel».
This
was, in fact, the Syrian part of the State Department’s Libyan
operation, Obama’s operation to set up an excuse for the US doing in
Syria what they had already done in Libya.
The interviewer then asked: «In the book [Hersh’s The Killing of Osama bin Laden, just out] you quote a former intelligence official as saying that the White House rejected 35 target sets [for the planned US invasion of Syria] provided
by the Joint Chiefs as being insufficiently painful to the Assad
regime. (You note that the original targets included military sites only
– nothing by way of civilian infrastructure.) Later the White House
proposed a target list that included civilian infrastructure. What would
the toll to civilians have been if the White House’s proposed strike
had been carried out?»
Hersh
responded by saying that the US tradition in that regard has long been
to ignore civilian casualties; i.e., collateral damage of US attacks is
okay or even desired (so as to terrorize the population into surrender) –
not an ‘issue’, except, perhaps, for the PR people.
The interviewer asked why Obama is so obsessed to replace Assad in Syria, since «The power vacuum that would ensue would open Syria up to all kinds of jihadi groups»; and Hersh replied that not only he, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff, «nobody could figure out why». He said, «Our policy has always been against him [Assad]. Period». This has actually been the case not only since the Party that Assad leads, the Ba’ath Party, was the subject of a shelved CIA coup-plot in 1957 to overthrow and replace it; but, actually, the CIA’s first coup had been not just planned but was carried out in 1949 in
Syria, overthrowing there a democratically elected leader, in order to
enable a pipeline for the Sauds’ oil to become built through Syria into
the largest oil market, Europe; and, construction of the pipeline
started the following year. But, there were then a succession of Syrian
coups (domestic instead of by foreign powers – 1954, 1963, 1966, and, finally, in 1970), concluding in the accession to power of Hafez al-Assad during the 1970 coup. And, the Sauds' long-planned Trans-Arabia Pipeline has still not
been built. The Saudi royal family, who own the world’s largest oil
company, Aramco, don’t want to wait any longer. Obama is the first US
President to have seriously tried to carry out their long-desired
«regime change» in Syria, so as to enable not only the Sauds’
Trans-Arabian Pipeline to be built, but also to build through Syria the Qatar-Turkey Gas Pipeline that
the Thani royal family (friends of the Sauds) who own Qatar want also
to be built there. The US is allied with the Saud family (and with their
friends, the royal families of Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, and Oman).
Russia is allied with the leaders of Syria – as Russia had earlier been
allied with Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile,
Hussein in Iraq, Gaddafi in Libya, and Yanukovych in Ukraine (all of whom except Syria’s Ba’ath Party, the US has successfully overthrown).
Hersh was wrong to say that «nobody could figure out why» Obama
is obsessed with overthrowing Assad and his Ba’ath Party, even if
nobody that he spoke with was willing to say why. They have all been
hired to do a job, which didn’t change even when the Soviet Union ended
and the Warsaw Pact was disbanded; and, anyone who has been at this job
for as long as those people have, can pretty well figure out what the
job actually is – even if Hersh can’t.
Hersh
then said that Obama wanted to fill Syria with foreign jihadists to
serve as the necessary ground forces for his planned aerial bombardment
there, and, «if
you wanted to go there and fight there in 2011-2013, ‘Go, go, go…
overthrow Bashar!’ So, they actually pushed a lot of
people [jihadists] to go. I don’t think they were paying for them but
they certainly gave visas».
However,
it’s not actually part of America’s deal with its allies the
fundamentalist-Sunni Arabic royal families and the fundamentalist Sunni
Erdogan of Turkey, for the US to supply the salaries (to be «paying for them», as Hersh put it there) to those fundamentalist Sunni jihadists – that’s instead the function of the Sauds and of their friends, the other Arab royals, and their friends,
to do. (Those are the people who finance the terrorists to perpetrate
attacks in the US, Europe, Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, India,
Nigeria, etc. – i.e., anywhere except in their own countries.) And,
Erdogan in Turkey mainly gives their jihadists just safe passage into
Syria, and he takes part of the proceeds from the jihadists’ sales of
stolen Syrian and Iraqi oil. But, they all work together as a team (with
the jihadists sometimes killing each other in the process – that’s even part of the plan)
– though each national leader has PR problems at home in order to fool
his respective public into thinking that they’re against terrorists, and
that only the ‘enemy’ is to blame. (Meanwhile, the aristocrats who
supply the «salaries» of the jihadists, walk off with all the money.)
This way, US oil and gas companies will refine, and pipeline into Europe, the Sauds’ oil and the Thanis’ gas,
and not only will Russia’s major oil-and-gas market become squeezed
away by that, but Obama’s economic sanctions against Russia, plus the
yet-further isolation of Russia (as well as of China and the rest of the
BRICS countries) by excluding them from
Obama’s three mega-trade-deals (TTIP, TPP & TISA), will place the
US aristocracy firmly in control of the world, to dominate the 21st
Century, as it has dominated ever since the end of WW II.
Then, came this question from Hersh: «Why does America do what it does? Why do we not say to the Russians, Let’s work together?» His interviewer immediately seconded that by repeating it, «So why don’t we work closer with Russia? It seems so rational». Hersh replied simply: «I don’t know». He
didn’t venture so much as a guess – not even an educated one. But, when
journalists who are as knowledgeable as he, don’t present some credible
explanation, to challenge the obvious lies (which make no sense that
accords with the blatantly contrary evidence those journalists know of
against those lies) that come from people such as Barack Obama, aren’t
they thereby – though passively – participating in the fraud, instead of
contradicting and challenging it? Or, is the underlying assumption,
there: The general public is going to be as deeply immersed in the
background information here as I am, so that they don’t need me to bring
it all together for them into a coherent (and fully documented) whole,
which does make sense? Is that the underlying assumption? Because: if it
is, it’s false.
Hersh’s journalism is among the best (after all: he went so far as to say, of Christopher Stephens, regarding Hillary Clinton, «there’s no way somebody in that sensitive of a position is not talking to the boss, by some channel»), but it’s certainly not good enough. However, it’s too good to be published any longer in places like the New Yorker. And the reporting by Christof Lehmann was
better, and it was issued even earlier than Hersh’s; and it is good
enough, because it named names, and it explained motivations, in an
honest and forthright way, which is why Lehmann’s piece was
published only on a Montenegrin site, and only online, not in a Western
print medium, such as the New Yorker. The sites that are owned by
members of the Western aristocracy don’t issue reports like that –
journalism that’s good enough. They won’t inform the
public when a US Secretary of State, and her boss the US President, are
the persons actually behind a sarin gas attack they’re blaming on a
foreign leader the US aristocrats and their allied foreign aristocrats
are determined to topple and replace.
Is this really a democracy?
No comments:
Post a Comment